Who are we? Where
did we come from? In addition, where are we going? These questions have
pondered theologians, philosophers and scientists. The meaning of our
existence frees us to pursue truth. If we are accidents, let us eat
drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. If created by an eternal, “First
Cause”, we can pursue the questions of life. Why we are here and where
are we going?

Based on the cosmological (cosmos) and the teleological
(design) arguments, it is logical to conclude the existence of a “First
Cause” for the universe and for life. In addition, the moral argument
demonstrates without moral absolutes and objective truth there can be no
right or wrong. Man is merely a random collection of protein molecules
nothing more or less then a collection of rocks at the bottom of a
canyon. Is there way to know the “First Cause”? What was the process
for life to exist? Was the First Cause active in creation? The debate
on the process of life’s existence has been divisive. There are two
camps with subsets to each view.

Macroevolution is a theory or model of origins that holds to
the idea that all varieties of life forms emanated from a single cell or
“Common ancestor”. Macroevolutionist believe that once the first living
cells came into existence, it was just a matter of time, natural
selection, and random molecular biological changes in their genetic
information systems (mutations) that caused new characteristics
(microevolutionary changes) to occur.[1]

The creation or design model is a theory diametrically opposed to the
theory of Macroevolution, Geisler writes,

The
design model is a theory of origins asserting that all life forms were
designed to experience only limited genetic variations (microevolution)
in order to adapt to and survive the stresses caused by environmental
changes.[2]

The difference
between these two theories is presupposition. Macroevolution assumes
there was no outside intelligence involved in the process of life’s
creation. Design assumes there was outside intelligence involved in the
process.

How
does the Macroevolution work?
Macroevolution assumes there is no outside intelligence involved in the
process of life’s existence. The main factors are chance and
environment. Following the explosion of matter from nothing, into the
universe (Big Bang), the universe expanded outward. Large gaseous clouds
of matter condensed into stars and collected into galaxies. Around our
star, the sun, formed planets composing our solar system, the planet
earth, had the right mixture of environmental factors conducive to
life. In a pond of water, a primeval soup,

the right collection of chemicals and environment formed protein
molecules. These molecules later would form into more complex protein
molecules. With the right environment and time, random collections of
chemicals became living matter, a one-celled organism. With natural
selection and mutation, this first cell was able to multiply.
This cell became the basis of all future life forms.

The
first life like all living matter to follow is made of carbon-based
molecules with its genetic blueprints encoded in DNA. The cell had the
ability to adapt to its environment through natural
selection
(Microevolution)[3].
However, in order for this cell to transition to a more complex form,
what is the mode of operation? Since there is no outside intelligence
involved, (According to the theory of macroevolution) how does a one
cell living organism obtain additional information? The problem this
first living cell would have to overcome in the evolution of itself into

The Macroevolution
Theories

Gradualism

Gradualism calls
for an organism to change at a very slow pace by the process of
natural selection and random micro-evolutionary mutations at the
genetic level, which would gradually lead to the emergence of a new
life form.[1]

Punctuated
Equilibria

This theory
attempts to find a solution to the lack of transitional forms. It
demands that life forms remain within their own genetic limits for
very long periods of time (Stasis), until environmental pressures
force to “burst forth” (sudden punctuations) into new life forms.
[2]

Theistic Evolution:

Theistic
macroevolution believes God is the cause behind life on the earth,
but that He uses macroevolution to bring about new life forms and
eventually the human race. This theory was developed by theists who
thought that macroevolution had some academic merit.

Many
theistic macroevolutionists who believe in gradualism believe that
bringing God into the model relieves them of the nagging problem of
the need for an intelligent cause.[3]

What is
mutation?

Genetic
mutation or transmutation is the method one species transitions
to another species in macroevolution via its genetic blueprint.

[pk1]The
transition of life from lizard to eagle according to those who
believe in Macroevolution is the result of a series of mutations
and natural selection. Additional information is introduced
into the living system’s genetic blueprint. This mutation
followed by the natural selection, selects those aspects that
are beneficial, allowing “upward” mutation. This “new” genetic
information is passed to following generation. These
transitional forms are the precursors of today’s life forms.
However, the fossil record of these forms is non-existent. Dr.
Etheridge from the British
Museum commented on this lack of transitional forms,

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is
sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly
unsupported by facts.
This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their
views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of
evidence of the transmutation of species." [1]

Natural Selection (Microevolution)

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution no mutation is
involved. Microevolution or adaptation uses the genetic
variety already in the system of the living organism. For
example, within every person is a gene code with genetic
potential. If a 7-foot woman man married, a 5-foot man
there is a certain probability that if they had 100 children
a certain percentage will be 7 foot and 5 foot. However,
zero probability that they will develop wings. In order for
the couples children to develop wings new genetic
information needs introduction into their genetic code.
Since there is no outside intelligent source for this
information, mutation is the only viable method. This is
the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Darrel Kautz, author of the Origin of Living Things comments
on this distinction.

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is
a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality
also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time
small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate
new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion,
for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the
occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale.
In spite of all the artificial breeding which has
been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit
flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other
organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria
remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains
corn, and human beings remain human beings."
[1]

This
difference between microevolution and macroevolution is
a point of confusion for many. Artists produce
pictures, which are not justified by facts but based on
imagination. These pictures are then confused with
Microevolution, based on science. Adaptation within
species is not a disputable issue, but is observable.
Macroevolution is not observed anywhere in the fossil
record. Darwin trip on the beagle documented
microevolution not macroevolution.

Isolated in the GalapagosIsland,
Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks
than those found off the island. His assumption was that
evolution was changing this species. However, these
finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter
Grant completed an 18-year study of the finches on this
island. He concluded that during drought years, the
finches with shorter beaks died off because with a
limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the
grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited
resources on a small island, these finches could not
migrate to find food. We
clearly observe natural selection, but not
macroevolution. However, it is not a permanent change.
The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during
seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of
microevolution. There are three plainly observable
principles to microevolution.

1. A
trait will alter because of a stimulus.

2. The
trait will return to the norm if left to nature or
returned to its original conditions.

3. No
new information is added to the DNA.

One
of the best examples of the creation of
macroevolution evidence is the story of Piltdown-man
used in the scopes monkey trial. (See Below)

The
Problems with Macroevolution

There are severe problems with macroevolution as
demonstrated in the illustration. Macroevolution
ultimately argues that man came from rock. With no
transitional fossils, and mathematically probability
rendering evolution impossibility those holding such
a view are operating under blind faith with little
logic behind the position.

Complexity of Life

Describing how a theory works and examining its probability
are two separate issues.

Each protein molecule is a particularly organized
structure composed of about twenty different amino
acids, and each amino acid is made up of four
elements hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon (in
two cases a sulfur atom is also present).

These complex systems are all, in the
case of every known organism, reproduced and
assembled on the basis of the “instructions” built
into the DNA molecular system. DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) is composed of six simpler
molecules; these consist of four bases, the
arrangement of which specifies the message, made up
of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, along with
a deoxyribose sugar molecule and a phosphate
molecule which hold the bases in place.

The DNA molecule not only has
information required for the synthesis of the
specific protein molecules needed by the cell, but
also that needed for its own replication. Thus,
reproduction and inheritance depend directly on this
remarkable molecule, as organized differently and
specifically for each kind of organism.

Thus, the problem of abiogeneis devolves
upon the method by which the first replicating
system evolved. The insuperable barrier; however
is that DNA
can only be replicated with the specific help of
certain protein molecules (enzymes) which, in turn,
can only produced at the direction of DNA. Each depends on the other and both must be present
for replication to take place.[1]

Parallel Evolution

Yet, somehow, if the evolution model is valid, wings
have “Evolved” four different times (in insects,
flying reptiles, birds and bats) eyes have “evolved”
independently at least three times.

Salisbury
has recently commented on this remarkable fact as
follows:

“My
last doubt concerns so-called parallel
evolution…Even something as complex as the eye has
appeared several times; for example, in the squid,
the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It’s bad
enough accounting for the origin of such things
once, but the thought of producing them several
times according to the modern synthetic theory makes
my head swim.”[2]

Genetic Mutations

Mutation is the most important component in
macroevolution; this is the mechanism to produce the
required upward progress in complexity. There are
serious problems with mutations.

Mutations are random, not directed.

“It remains true to say that we know of no way other then
random mutation by which new hereditary variation
comes into being, nor any process other than natural
selection by which the hereditary constitution of a
population changes from one generation to the next.”[3]

Mutations are rare

“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority
of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten
thousand and one in a million per gene per
generation”[4]

Good Mutations are very, very rare.

“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as
their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great
majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are
harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the
effects of accidental occurrences”[5]

The Net Effect of All Mutations is Harmful

“The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or
even lethal to the individual in whom they are
expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as
introducing a ‘load’ or genetic burden, in the
pool. The term genetic load was first used by the
late H.J. Muller who recognized that the rate of
mutations is increased by numerous agents man has
introduced into his environment, notably ionizing
radiation and mutagenic chemicals”
[6]

Mutations affect and are affected by many genes.

It now appears that each gene affects many characteristics
and every characteristic is controlled by many
genes.

“Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is discrete,
discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or
gene level, its effects are modified by interactions
in the whole genetic system of an individual.”[7]

Assume a sea of freely available components, each
uniquely capable of performing a specific useful
function. What is the probability that two or more
of them can come together by chance to form an
integrated functioning organism?

As long as the number of components in the organism is small,
the chance association in this way is a reasonable
possibility. For example, consider two components,
A and B. If they happen to link up in the form A-B,
say the combined system will work, but B-A will not
work. There is a ½ probability of success.

If there are 3 components, A,B, and C there are six possible
ways these can link up, ABC, ACB,BAC,
BCA,CAB, and CBA. Since it is assumed that only one
of these will work there is a 1/6 probability of
success

The more the components the less the probability, consider,
for example an organism composed of only 100
integrated parts. Remember that each of these parts
must fulfill a unique function in the organism and
so there is only one way in which these 100 parts
can link up, the probability of a successful chance
linkage is only one out of 10158. (10
with 158 “zeros”)

Research sponsored in part by NASA has shown that the
simplest type of protein molecule that could be said
to be “living” is composed of a chain of at least
400 linked amino acids, and each amino acid is a
specific combination of four or five basic chemical
elements.

The
problem discussed is oversimplified. A simple
linked protein molecule, or any other such system,
could never reproduce itself. In the world of living
organism, the phenomena of reproduction and
inheritance are always directed by the DNA
molecule. The evolution of life therefore must have
involved somehow the accidental synthesis of the
first such DNA molecule. Frank Salisbury, who is
himself an evolutionary biologist, discusses this
riddle as follows:

Now
we know that the cell itself is far more complex
than we had imagined. It includes thousands of
functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex
machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into
being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (its complexity) must be as great
as that of the enzyme it controls.

A
medium protein might include about 300 amino acids.
The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000
nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four
kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting
of 1000 links could exist in 41000=10600.
This number is completely beyond our comprehension.

The Design Theory:

The
theory of creation as opposed to evolution sees the
“First cause” of the universe as the designer of
life. There are two views of the creation theory;
Progressive and Young Earth.

Progressive Model

The
progressive model teaches that God created life in
stages that parallel the days of creation. The days
in creation were not literal days, but successive
periods.

Dry land created/Earth-moon system
created/atmosphere becomes transparent
(single-celled plant life created by now)

4,9-10

Origin of double planet system(theory of the
origin of the moon from the Earth would
create a basin in the earth for water to
gather to one side)

4-5

Creation of sea animals(multicellular to
amphibians/reptiles/winged animals) creation
of “Great reptiles” (the largest reptiles
are dinosaurs)

14-19

Cambrian explosion/age of fish (array of
multicellular animals having the body plans
of virtually all creatures that now swim,
fly or crawl throughout the world.)

5-6

Creation of land animals(domesticated
livestock, non-domesticated-wild) creation
of mammals/human life

24-27

Age of amphibians/reptiles

Age of mammals/humanity

Young Earth

The
young Earth model views creation from a literal 6
day, 24 hour creation. The universe is created with
the appearance of age. Adam, for example, was not
created as a baby but as a full-grown man with the
appearance of age. The same can be said for the
creation of wine at Cana, Jesus created wine from water a process that normally takes
time, the wine had an appearance of age, though it
was created moments prior. Supernatural events are
not subject to the physical world. The creation of
the universe is a supernatural event. Matter, space
and time exploded into existence at God’s creation
of the universe.

What about Noah’s Arc?

The deposits of coal and oil underneath the
Earth surface demonstrate living matter was
covered by sedimentary deposits of the great
deluge. Oil and Coal are the remains of dead
living matter.

Fossils only occur if living matter is
immediately buried. The large numbers of fossils
are the result of the deluge in Noah’s day.

Sea life fossils are the top of Mt.Everest
in addition to the rest of the mountain chains.

Languages, both written and spoken demonstrate
that mankind was once a single tribal group that
separated in the past.

Verse

Day of Creation

Bible

Genesis 1:1-2

1In the
beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. 2The earth was without
form, and void; and darkness was
on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God was hovering over the face of the
waters.

Creation

of matter, space and time.

Big Bang.

Genesis 1:3-5

1

3Then God
said, “Let there be light”; and there was
light. 4And God saw the light,
that it was good; and God divided the
light from the darkness. 5God
called the light Day, and the darkness He
called Night. So the evening and the morning
were the first day.

Creation of light, and its physical
properties.

Genesis 1:6-8

2

6Then
God said, “Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the
waters from the waters.” 7Thus
God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament
from the waters which were above the
firmament; and it was so. 8And
God called the firmament Heaven. So the
evening and the morning were the second day

Condensation of matter to form the earth,
Creation of the watery planet.

Genesis 1:9-13

3

9Then God
said, “Let the waters under the heavens be
gathered together into one place, and let
the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10And God called the dry land
Earth, and the gathering together of the
waters He called Seas. And God saw that
it was good.

11Then
God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb that yields seed, and
the fruit tree that yields fruit
according to its kind, whose seed is
in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth
grass, the herb that yields seed
according to its kind, and the tree that
yields fruit, whose seed is in itself
according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good. 13So the evening
and the morning were the third day.

The appearance of land, and separation from
water,

Plants are created with genetic variety,

Genesis 1:14-19

4

14Then
God said, “Let there be lights in the
firmament of the heavens to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs
and seasons, and for days and years; 15and
let them be for lights in the firmament of
the heavens to give light on the earth”; and
it was so. 16Then God made two
great lights: the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night.
He made the stars also. 17God
set them in the firmament of the heavens to
give light on the earth, 18and to
rule over the day and over the night, and to
divide the light from the darkness. And God
saw that it was good. 19So
the evening and the morning were the fourth
day.

The matter in the universe is organized and
is turned on. The light and light sources
are created. The Sun and moon. The stars in
the universe is created for light on the
earth during the night.

Genesis 1:20-24

5

20Then
God said, “Let the waters abound with an
abundance of living creatures, and let birds
fly above the earth across the face of the
firmament of the heavens.” 21So
God created great sea creatures and every
living thing that moves, with which the
waters abounded, according to their kind,
and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good. 22And
God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
and let birds multiply on the earth.”
23So the evening and the morning were
the fifth day.

All varieties of birds and sea animals are
created each with genetic variety and
limitations (kind)

Genesis 1:25-31

6

24Then
God said, “Let the earth bring forth the
living creature according to its kind:
cattle and creeping thing and beast of the
earth, each according to its kind”;
and it was so. 25And God made the
beast of the earth according to its kind,
cattle according to its kind, and everything
that creeps on the earth according to its
kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then
God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, over
all the earth and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27So God created man in His
own image; in the image of God He
created him; male and female He created
them. 28Then God blessed them,
and God said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over every living
thing that moves on the earth.”

29And
God said, “See, I have given you every herb
that yields seed which is on
the face of all the earth, and every tree
whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be
for food. 30Also, to every beast
of the earth, to every bird of the air, and
to everything that creeps on the earth, in
which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food”; and it was so.
31Then God saw everything that He
had made, and indeed it was very
good. So the evening and the morning were
the sixth day.

Land animals and insects with genetic
variety and kind are created. Man is
created in the image of the “First Cause”.

These website are
very helpful for those seeking additional
information

also called Dawson's dawn man (Eoanthropus dawsoni),
proposed species of extinct hominid whose fossil
remains, discovered in England in1910–12, were later
proved to be fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils
were sufficiently convincing to generate a scholarly
controversy lasting more than 40 years, was one of
the most successful hoaxes in the history of
science.

In
a series of discoveries in 1910–12, Charles Dawson,
an English lawyer and amateur geologist, found what
appeared to be the fossilized fragments of a
cranium, a jawbone, and other specimens in a gravel
formation at Barkham Manor, on Piltdown Common near
Lewes in Sussex. Dawson brought the specimens to
Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the British
Museum's paleontology department, who announced the
find at a meeting of the Geological Society of
London on Dec. 18, 1912. Woodward claimed that the
fossils represented a previously unknown species of
extinct hominid (E. dawsoni) that could be the
missing evolutionary link between apes and early
humans. His claims were eagerly and uncritically
endorsed by some prominent English scientists,
perhaps because the Piltdown fossils suggested that
the British Isles had been an important site of
early human evolution.

As
long as the remains were accorded a high antiquity,
Piltdown man seemed a feasible alternative to Homo
erectus (then known from scanty remains as
Pithecanthropus) as an ancestor of modern humans. In
1926, however, the Piltdown gravels were found to be
much less ancient than supposed, and from 1930, more
finds of Pithecanthropus, the discoveries of the
more primitive Australopithecus, and further
examples of Neanderthal man left Piltdown man
completely isolated in the evolutionary sequence. In
1953–54, as an outcome of these discoveries, an
intensive scientific reexamination of the Piltdown
remains showed them to be the skillfully disguised
fragments of a quite modern human cranium (about 600
years old), the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, and
the tooth probably of a chimpanzee, all fraudulently
introduced into the shallow gravels. Chemical tests
revealed that the fragments had been deliberately
stained, some with chromium and others with acid
iron sulfate solution (neither chromium nor sulfate
occurs in the locality) and that, although the
associated remains were of genuine extinct animals,
they were not of British provenance. The teeth, too,
had been subjected to artificial abrasion to
simulate the human mode of flat wear.

The
first solid evidence regarding the identity of the
perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a
trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been
discovered in storage at the BritishMuseum
in 1975. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk,
the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and
Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in
the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The
trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton,
who became keeper of zoology at the BritishMuseum
in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a
volunteer at the museum, may have treated and
planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to
ensnare and embarrass A.S. Woodward, who had
rebuffed Hinton's request for a weekly wage. Hinton
presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for
practice before treating the bones used in the
actual hoax.

[3] Natural Selection, microevolution, is
system of genetic variety within a living system. The living
system naturally selects, by survival, what genetic traits will
dominate. For example short necked giraffes die because they are
unable to reach the leaves on the tree. Long necked giraffes
survive and become the dominate gene for giraffes. No new
genetic information is introduced into the system.